Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Haryana Police informed the Supreme Court today that it has filed closure report in one FIR against Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who teaches political science at the Ashok University, and has filed chargesheet in another FIR against him over his social media posts on 'Operation Sindoor'.

Taking note of this development, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi quashed the FIR in which the closure report was filed; as regards the other FIR, the Court passed an interim order barring the Magistrate from taking cognizance of it. Additional Solicitor General of India SV Raju appeared for the Haryana Police.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioner, told the bench that it was "most unfortunate" that the police invoked Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with offences attacking the sovereignty of the nation, for the social media comments. Sibal added that the Supreme Court is now examining the constitutionality of Section 152 BNS.

To recap, the Court granted interim bail to Mahmudabad on May 21, while directing the Haryana DGP to constitute a Special Investigation Team to “holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts.”

On the last date, the Court asked why the Haryana Police SIT was "misdirecting itself". It observed that the SIT was formed specifically to investigate the two social media posts and asked why the scope was being expanded. The bench made these comments after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Mahmudabad) submitted that the SIT had seized his devices and was asking about foreign trips for the last ten years. Sibal pointed out that the Court, by its May 28 order, had directed the SIT to confine its probe to the contents of the social media posts.

Noting that Mahmudabad had cooperated with the investigation and surrendered his devices, the Court directed that he should not be summoned again. "You don't require him (Mahmudabad), you require a dictionary," Justice Kant said. The bench further directed the SIT to conclude its investigation within four weeks.

Background

Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18 pursuant to an FIR lodged by Haryana police over his social media posts and remained in custody until May 21, when he was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court.

At the same time, the Court refused to stay the investigation and directed the Haryana DGP to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising senior IPS officers, who did not belong to Haryana or Delhi, to examine and report on the Professor's two online posts.

As a condition of interim bail, the top Court restrained Mahmudabad from writing any posts/articles in relation to the social media posts which were subject matter of the case or from expressing any opinion in relation to the terrorist attack on Indian soil or the counter-response given by India. The Court also directed him to join and fully cooperate with the investigation. He was further directed to surrender his passport.

When an apprehension was shown from Mahmudabad's end that further FIRs may be registered on the same issue, Justice Kant orally told Haryana government to ensure that the same did not happen. Nonetheless, the judge expressed reservations about Mahmudabad's comments in his social media posts. A stern view was also taken of students and teachers condemning Mahmudabad's arrest.

Later, Mahmudabad's counsels raised an apprehension that the SIT constituted by the State may investigate aspects beyond the subject FIRs. This led the Supreme Court to clarify that the SIT probe shall be limited to the two FIRs lodged against Mahmudabad and cannot be expanded. Authorities' seeking access to Mahmudabad's digital devices was also ruled out.

Although a relaxation of the bail conditions imposed on the Professor was sought, the Court underlined the need for a cooling-off period and asked his counsels to remind on the next date. Notably, it also questioned the Haryana government about its response to National Human Rights Commission taking cognizance of the manner of registration of FIR in Mahmudabad's case. "You tell us about that also", Justice Kant said to the Haryana AAG.

Mahmudabad is facing offences under Section 196, 152 etc., of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, inter-alia, pertaining to acts prejudicial to maintaining communal harmony, making assertions likely to cause disharmony, acts endangering national sovereignty and words or gestures intended to insult a woman's modesty.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Luthra, Advocate Nizam Pasha (for Mahmudabad); ASG SV Raju (for Haryana)

Case Title : MOHAMMAD AMIR AHMAD @ ALI KHAN MAHMUDABAD Versus STATE OF HARYANA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2025